US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals

page: 16
104
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Debate this Mr. President....


Why Carry a Gun?

My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when
he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and
usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin.'

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating
myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on
a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones
they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to
me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the
crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take
an ass whoopin'.....author unknown (but obviously brilliant)




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by relocator
 


I just had to star that, who wrote it?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by relocator
 


Well put



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoubleDNH
I've tried to ask this before and I've never gotten a legitimate response. Do the people who believe that Obama's proposals infringe on their 2nd amendment rights also believe that ordinary citizens should have the ability to possess RPGs, Hand Grenades, Tanks, Bombers, Missiles, etc..?? I think everyone can agree that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to protect us from an over-reaching, tyrant... people seem to be fine with the restrictions on those type of weapons but for some reason draw the line on 30 round magazines or semi-automatic weapons... if you don't agree that people should possess ANY weapon they would like to protect them against the government.... I call you a complete and total fraud/hypocrite. If you do believe that we should be able to possess these weapons... I suggest one of the new mental health evaluations...

People like to hide behind the 2nd amendment but in reality, the 2nd protects free and regulated militias... not Joe SixPack who wants to own a machine gun.


I keep seeing this argument, but I don't know where in the heck people are getting it. Just because YOU don't know anybody with these things doesn't mean people don't have them. Tanks are perfectly legal if you can afford to buy one and you can even have fully functioning guns provided you go through the proper paperwork and pay the tax. The same can be said for any of the other destructive device category weapons you mentioned.

If you have muzzle-loading cannons, they don't have to be registered at all. I know a guy who does Civil War reenactment stuff who has 6 or 7 fully functioning cannons.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Author unknown...
2nd...



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by relocator
 


ahh well all the same thanks for posting it dude



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
People have to see the bigger picture, it is not about Guns it is about making you defenceless, All you hear from Obama is a lot of heart felt talking,

He pulls on the heart strings of good people by saying he is trying to protect the children. claiming that even one life lost is one to many, yet these are his words, look at his actions and how many thousands of children have died because of this tyranical system.

It saddens me that people still cannot understand that a politician will say ANYTHING to you to get you to agree with him, all they care about is the agenda to control us. And stop listening to the words they say and look at what they are physically doing, To the economy, to nature, and to humanity, yet we still believe they care and have our best interests at heart........what a joke.

Check out this video it has an interesting scenario which will make you realize the importance of keeping your guns.




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Watching the evolution to a police state, the american people really need guns to protect themselves. If a revolution breaks out the people really need firearms.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Some of those proposals are actually reasonable. As for the ones regarding assault weapons, high capacity clips/magazines and armor piercing bullets, I can understand where he's coming from, but I disagree with him. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be comfortable around someone who owns any of those weapons/accessories, but I still wouldn't ban them.

Besides, how many crimes cases are there involving:
-high capacity mags/clips
-assault weapons
-armor-piercing bullets

where the items in question were acquired legally? Also, are the higher than cases where said items weren't acquired legally?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Better to be judged by 12 then to be carried by 6!

Another great saying.

(althougth today you are more likely to be detained by DHS and sent to some dungeon)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

33



That is all you needed to hear. They started the speech with it and emphasized it twice.

You now know beyond a shadow of a doubt who was behind Sandy Hook.


?



Can I have some of what you're drinking?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


A Simple Response to this Breaking News Should be...................

www.youtube.com...#!





NEVER FORGET The Freedoms Our Forefathers Bestowed Upon US.........



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq

There is no Obama supporters vs Bush supporters or Democrats vs Republicans.

There is only the Jesuits/Freemasons/Illuminati/Luciferians vs the people.

33 Days Since Sandy Hook

x 2

They are flaunting in our face that they carried out Sandy Hook as a child sacrifice for success in disarming this country and are laughing at us because we can't connect the dots and even if we did no one would listen.
edit on 1/16/2013 by ararisq because: (no reason given)


I take it back. Whatever it is you're drinking, I want no part of it.

I'll stick to my rum.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Actually he is correct there. 9-11-2001 also had luciferian numerological symbolism attached to. I remember reading about the symbolish of the events of 9-11-2001 years ago on the internet and perhaps if you dig enough you might find it.

You should also look into the illuminati card game and see what each card stands for.

The things that are too incredible to believe are by the same token the ones that are most likely to suceed. I forgot who came up with this saying but it is indeed true and marvelous. It takes an open mind to discover new things. Some people are cut for it and some are not.....

It is a bit rude though to attack someone without at least taking a momentary look at the material, imo of course.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Some of those proposals are actually reasonable. As for the ones regarding assault weapons, high capacity clips/magazines and armor piercing bullets, I can understand where he's coming from, but I disagree with him. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be comfortable around someone who owns any of those weapons/accessories, but I still wouldn't ban them.

Besides, how many crimes cases are there involving:
-high capacity mags/clips
-assault weapons
-armor-piercing bullets

where the items in question were acquired legally? Also, are the higher than cases where said items weren't acquired legally?


Sport rifles do not belong in the assault weapon category because they are not automatic. It REALLY is that simple! High capacity magazines hardely make a signifcant difference to anything. Banning armor piercing rounds, short barraled shotguns, and automatics DOES make sense though.

At the end of the day it is the deceit that annoys me and I suspect many right wingers to. If the government is not capable of labeling things appropriately then how can we have an honest debate to reach reasonable conclusions?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
According to our sherrif the other day, obama can
pass what ever law's he choses, but they are not going to
be enforced in this area of the world.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Actually he is correct there. 9-11-2001 also had luciferian numerological symbolism attached to. I remember reading about the symbolish of the events of 9-11-2001 years ago on the internet and perhaps if you dig enough you might find it.

You should also look into the illuminati card game and see what each card stands for.

The things that are too incredible to believe are by the same token the ones that are most likely to suceed. I forgot who came up with this saying but it is indeed true and marvelous. It takes an open mind to discover new things. Some people are cut for it and some are not.....

It is a bit rude though to attack someone without at least taking a momentary look at the material, imo of course.


My mind is sometimes open, but not THAT open - it's not open enough to entertain notions of esoteric numerology having any bearing on the real world. I don't believe that stars guide my destiny, either - I guess I'm just too hidebound.

I'll leave you all to it. I had enough of odd and funny numbers when I studied physics.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Sport rifles do not belong in the assault weapon category because they are not automatic. It REALLY is that simple! High capacity magazines hardely make a signifcant difference to anything. Banning armor piercing rounds, short barraled shotguns, and automatics DOES make sense though.


banning "armor piercing rounds" is a slippery slope. It all depends on what sort of armor you're trying to pierce. A common bolt action deer rifle will pierce IIa kevlar, most commonly used by police. Just about any FMJ rifle round will do it. Start outlawing "armor piercing rounds", and watch how they run with that. Short barreled shotguns are very handy in tight spaces and CQB, and I'd hate to see that taken off the table as a dfensive tool for them that needs it. "Automatics" (i.e. full auto) is wasteful of ammunition, but not particularly more dangerous than semi-auto. It's most useful for keeping heads down while your buddies maneuver. Not so useful for "spray-n-pray". It just burns up ammo and covers poor marksmanship, hoping that no one will notice the lack of hits in all the noise.



At the end of the day it is the deceit that annoys me and I suspect many right wingers to. If the government is not capable of labeling things appropriately then how can we have an honest debate to reach reasonable conclusions?


Yeah, that kinda burns us up. It's trying to take rights by stealth, and there's just no telling where that might end... or IF that might end.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Actually he is correct there. 9-11-2001 also had luciferian numerological symbolism attached to. I remember reading about the symbolish of the events of 9-11-2001 years ago on the internet and perhaps if you dig enough you might find it.

You should also look into the illuminati card game and see what each card stands for.

The things that are too incredible to believe are by the same token the ones that are most likely to suceed. I forgot who came up with this saying but it is indeed true and marvelous. It takes an open mind to discover new things. Some people are cut for it and some are not.....

It is a bit rude though to attack someone without at least taking a momentary look at the material, imo of course.


My mind is sometimes open, but not THAT open - it's not open enough to entertain notions of esoteric numerology having any bearing on the real world. I don't believe that stars guide my destiny, either - I guess I'm just too hidebound.

I'll leave you all to it. I had enough of odd and funny numbers when I studied physics.


Numbers by themselves mean nothing. It is the motives behind using numerology that determines deeds. I am not a big fan of numerology either. I think it is a distraction more than anything else.





top topics
 
104
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join